CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 juillet 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   529 24.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KURNAZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kurnaz and Others v. Turkey (application no. 36672/97).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention concerning the applicant’s injuries in prison; a violation of Article 3 concerning the lack of an effective investigation.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants, jointly, 10,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mehmet Kurnaz, was a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lived in Antalya (Turkey). He died in December 1997 and his parents, brother and sister decided to continue the proceedings before the Court on his behalf. He had a number of serious medical conditions and, in 1994, was diagnosed with chronic renal insufficiency.   Mr Kurnaz was a member of the United Socialist Party ( Birleşik Sosyalist Partisi ) and, between 1973 and 1982, he was held in police custody a number of times.   On 1 September 1995 Mr Kurnaz was arrested again and remanded in custody on charges of being a member of an illegal organisation.   On 21 September a riot broke out in Buca Prison during which Mr Kurnaz received a serious blow to his head. He was hospitalised the same day, and a medical report, noting bruising, swelling and a cut of 4   cm, confirmed that he had a serious head injury.   The parties disagreed as to what had happened during the prison riot. The applicants claimed that Mr   Kurnaz was deliberately attacked by prison officers and gendarmes during which he was hit on the head with a metal handle. The Government claimed that detainees awaiting trial in a dormitory cell refused to be counted by prison officers and then piled up metal cupboards behind their dormitory door. Gendarmes were brought in to forcibly enter the dormitory. The prisoners broke windows, burned beds and used metal handles from cupboards to attack the prison officers and gendarmes. The latter used tear gas and pressurised water to quell the riot. The Government alleged that Mr Kurnaz actively took part in the riot. 15 gendarmes and 40 prisoners were injured. Three detainees subsequently died.   On 12 October 1995 it was decided that the prison officers would not be prosecuted because it had been proved, in particular, that only the gendarmes had broken into the dormitory and used force. The case concerning the gendarmes was transferred to İzmir Governor’s Office.   That decision and the transfer of the case against the gendarmes were then used in August 1996 to justify the public prosecutor’s decision not to investigate Mr Kurnaz’s complaint about his ill-treatment and the extensive injuries he had sustained at Buca Prison.   Mr Kurnaz was released pending trial on 25 October 1995 and was ultimately acquitted of being a member of an illegal organisation a year later. The criminal proceedings against him and the other prisoners for rioting were suspended on 25 December 2000. In the meantime and following a series of hospitalisations and medical treatment, Mr Kurnaz died on 22 December 1997 of renal insufficiency.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 10 May 1997 and was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 7   December 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Pâivi Hirvelä (Finnish), judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 2, 3 and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants alleged that Mehmet Kurnaz had been ill-treated on 21 September 1995 during a prison riot and that, as a result, he had died two years later.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   The Court observed that there was no doubt that the serious blow to Mehmet Kurnaz’s head on 21 September 1995 contributed to a general deterioration in his health.   However, the Court noted that Mr Kurnaz was ill, notably from chronic renal insufficiency, prior to his detention in Buca Prison. There was no convincing evidence in the case file to support the applicants’ allegations that Mr Kurnaz’s poor health had been caused from alleged ill treatment during his previous periods in detention. There was no indication either that he had been denied adequate medical assistance during his detention. Furthermore, the Court could not ignore the fact that he died two years after the incident in Buca Prison, following lengthy treatment.   The Court therefore concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that Turkey was responsible for Mr Kurnaz’s death. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 2.   Article 3   The Court noted that the Government had not denied that Mr Kurnaz’s injuries, confirmed in a medical report of 21 September 1995, had resulted from the authorities having used force. Those injuries had led to severe pain and suffering and had had lasting consequences on his health.   The Court recognised the potential for violence in a prison setting and accepted that firm intervention by security forces was required if, for example, rioting was sporadic, widespread or included hostage-taking.   However, in the applicants’ case the incident had at all times been confined to one dormitory cell. There had also been some warning about impending difficulties when the detainees had refused to be counted. Indeed, the situation only degenerated after the gendarmes forcibly entered the dormitory. Mr Kurnaz had not therefore been injured during a random and widespread insurrection giving rise to unexpected developments. The Court therefore considered that it was up to the Government to demonstrate convincingly that the use of force had not been excessive.   The Government had merely stated that force had had to be used against the detainees without providing any explanation or documentation. Furthermore, there was no proof in the case file that the prison authorities had seriously attempted to restore order or that the operation had been properly organised or monitored so as to minimise the risk of serious bodily harm to the detainees. The Court therefore concluded that the force used against the applicant on 21 September 1995 at Buca Prison had been excessive and that Turkey was responsible for his injuries.   The Court further noted that the case file did not refer to the outcome of the proceedings against the gendarmes. Indeed, it reached the same finding as in similar cases raising the same issue under the Convention in that the investigation carried out by the administrative councils, chaired by governors, could not be regarded as independent since they had been composed of local representatives of the executive who were hierarchically dependent on the governors.   There had therefore been two violations of Article 3, firstly, due to the injuries sustained by Mr Kurnaz and, secondly, due to the lack of an effective and independent investigation into how they had occurred.   Other articles The Court further held unanimously that no separate issue arose under Article 13.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.